Over the last few days, since Romney clinched the GOP nomination for President by going over the 1,144 committed delegates needed with his win in the Texas Primary on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, a number of new endorsements have come in for Romney's bid for the Presidency.

These include George Shultz, former Secretary of State; Condoliza Rice, former Secretrary of State and National Security Advisor; Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate; and Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan. Here's what each of them had to say on the date they endorsed Romney:

I offer my firm endorsement of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. Ronnie would have liked Gov. Romney's business background and his strong principles, and I have to say I do too. I believe Mitt Romney has the experience and leadership skills that our country so desperately needs, and I look forward to seeing him elected president in November.

I was very careful and deliberate in not wanting to get involved in the process prior to somebody securing the nomination, largely because I play on both radio and television. I didnt feel it was appropriate for me to pick a Republican candidate. I dont think anyone doubted that I was going to support the Republican. But Mitt Romney has now earned it  and I use that term very specifically. He worked hard to get it and therefore I think all Republicans and all conservatives need to rally around Gov. Romney.

"So, I made it very clear: Ill do everything that I can to vigorously support Mitt Romney because I think our country is at stake, and I believe his leadership would provide the right direction as opposed to what weve had for four years, which is the wrong direction.

Four years ago, we were opponents. Theres a lot that happens when you are running against somebody in a primary, but its not personal between Mitt Romney and me. Its about our country, and quite frankly, Mitt has worked hard. He has my absolute and full support. I think when you look at what Obama has done and what Mitt Romney brings to the table in terms of being able to manage something, for heavens sakes, Mitt's managed a state, hes managed a significant capital enterprise, hes managed a huge non-profit endeavor, the Olympics, and done it all successfully. Barack Obama came to the presidency having managed nothing, not so much as a hot dog stand. And this country is struggling because of it.

"I am going to do everything I can humanly do for Mitt Romney to be the next president.

"We care about the future of this country, and the future of our world and Im delighted to join so many friends here in supporting, and in my case, endorsing, Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States. If America is going to rebuild its strength at home, rebuild its sense of who we are, it needs a leader that also understands how really exceptional the United States of America is, and is not afraid to lead on the basis of that exceptionalism. America's leadership is craved in this world, its understood in this world. The only thing the American people dislike more than weak leadership, is no leadership at all. And Governor Romney, you can bring it back."

"What Mitt has done at Bain Capital has been a major contribution to the American economy. He has learned and instinctively can feel what it takes to get this huge amount of money that is sitting on the sidelines of our economy to move forward and be invested."

I found Huckabee's statement interesting, and compelling, given the history.

CLICK HERE ON THIS LINK to see what each of the following names on the list below had to say (and when they said it) in endorsing Romney:

A long and impressive list of very recognizable names that brings together every portion of the GOP...from the very conservative, to moderates (which he will have to have to win, as sad as it is to include some of their views), which will and is also attracting a majority of the independents...which he will also have to garner.

That's an impressive list Romney is accumulating with many very well known and respected, all-American conservatives and champions of the Constitution among them.

Indeed it is an impressive list Jeff. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia should be on it, too.

Also such talk radio luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Katz, Jay Severin, and Sean Hannity, all heard on Boston Talk Radio WTKK 1200 AM. (Glenn Beck is also on the roster, but I don't hear his show very often, so don't know what he's been saying lately.)

What I most admire about Rush is that he is unquestionably a most solid and principled political conservative, and yet he is not a dogmatist about it. Rather, he is a political realist.

A dogmatist rarely moves beyond the approved "text." A political realist, however, understands that politics is the art of the possible. That is, he is aware that a dogmatic position by itself cannot transform political reality, that a dogma as an end-in-itself is pretty sterile as a means of effecting political change. I believe this; and the history of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this. He understands you have to work within the context of on-the-ground political realities, illuminating problems according to core principles, but not reducing their solutions to simple, pat, one-size-fits-all dogmatic answers.

In other words, a text  no matter how sublime  that is not transformed by lived experience guided by core principle does not actually bear much fruit. This involves the (humble) recognition that we "ordinary" people can do little by our own efforts to shape the political environment, but must participate in it anyway, just as we find it. This is directly analogous to the idea that "faith without works is dead." If that makes any sense at all....

To change the subject: A couple weeks back, P-Marlowe suggested that my vote for Romney in Massachusetts would be a totally wasted vote, because Obama was going to carry the state no matter what. (So I might just as well vote for Virgil Goode. But what would be better about that vote, since Obama is supposedly going to carry Massachusetts?)

I, as a "prisoner behind enemy lines" in Massachusetts, have noticed certain signs around the state in recent times that suggest Obama may not have a lock on Massachusetts' electoral votes.

I've mentioned one of them before, on another thread: The loud, long booing of Obama at Fenway Park on the Red Sox seasons' opening day. It happened to be the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park (a hallowed Boston institution), so the Prez put together a little congratulatory video, broadcast to the fans on the Jumbotron. The crowd roared their disapproval of him  music to my ears. Especially because a phenomenon like this happened in Massachusetts.

Then, David Axelrod  Obama's chief spear-carrier  made a speech here this past week, and hundreds of "protesters" showed up to heckle him. He totally lost control of his audience, and his speech could barely be heard. The look of shock on his face was priceless....

Plus, as already mentioned above, Boston Talk Radio WTKK's diverse line-up of political commentators are trashing the Prez, and arguing the case for Romney. This is the radio station that long-suffering political conservatives, libertarians, and "independents" living "behind enemy lines" in Massachusetts listen to.

I am heartened by these developments. On this basis, I'd hazard the guess that Massachusetts may be a swing state this year. I think the left-progressive political machine that runs this state is losing control over "the public mind" here.... There is a growing sense of "I'm mad as h*ll, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511

The entire FR He-Man Mitt Haters Club jihad is predicated on such outlandish predictions of the monstrous and megalomoniacal things Romney is sure to do once in office. And how do we know that this is what he'll do? Because of his history of being an unprincipled, flip-flopping squish. It is to laugh!

The unprincipled flip-flopping liar Mitt may do bad things. Obama the big government tyrant will do bad things.

Indeed it is an impressive list Jeff. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia should be on it, too.

Also such talk radio luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Katz, Jay Severin, and Sean Hannity, all heard on Boston Talk Radio WTKK 1200 AM. (Glenn Beck is also on the roster, but I don't hear his show very often, so don't know what he's been saying lately.)

What I most admire about Rush is that he is unquestionably a most solid and principled political conservative, and yet he is not a dogmatist about it. Rather, he is a political realist.

A dogmatist rarely moves beyond the approved "text." A political realist, however, understands that politics is the art of the possible. That is, he is aware that a dogmatic position by itself cannot transform political reality, that a dogma as an end-in-itself is pretty sterile as a means of effecting political change. I believe this; and the history of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this. He understands you have to work within the context of on-the-ground political realities, illuminating problems according to core principles, but not reducing their solutions to simple, pat, one-size-fits-all dogmatic answers.

In other words, a text  no matter how sublime  that is not transformed by lived experience guided by core principle does not actually bear much fruit. This involves the (humble) recognition that we "ordinary" people can do little by our own efforts to shape the political environment, but must participate in it anyway, just as we find it. This is directly analogous to the idea that "faith without works is dead." If that makes any sense at all....

This is a wonderful speech and all, but I can't help but smell in it the foul stench of fear and surrender.

Further, it's something of a straw man. See, what you're trying to do with this is build up the false dichotomy of "pragmatic conservative" versus "wild-eyed extremist." The "pragmatic conservatives" (such as, presumably, yourself) are willing to accept political realities, while "wild-eyed extremists" who aren't supporting Romney (i.e. the people who disagree with you) are just trying to destroy this country through their fanaticism and intolerance.

Complete and utter nonsense, every last word of it.

Sorry, but conservatism is not a living, breathing document, no matter how much you would like for it to be. It's really NOT okay to support pro-life yesterday, but pro-abortion today, even if doing so means you get to dodge the "dogmatist" label. It's not okay to want conservative economic solutions yesterday, but then to go along with the status quo of "progressive" taxation, more social spending, and more government control of the economy today, just because this will get you a pat on the back from the GOP-E.

I have seen nothing yet to actually suggest that Mitt Romney will be good for the country - and really, that's what this *should* be all about. You screech and scream about how bad Obama is - and he is - but you have been unsuccessful in making the case that Romney would be effectively better. You really have. You have failed in that effort. Simply accusing people of lying when they bring out facts about your chosen candidate, while having become an unfortunate FReeper pastime for the past couple of years, is not convincing. Accusing people of religious animus toward him because he's a Mormon doesn't make a solid case for you. All it does is further convince us that you really have nothing substantive to offer to us as far as making a case FOR Romney. I mean, you can get all the thumbs up and rah-rahs from Jeff Head and rogue yam that you could want - but it still doesn't make the case.

What's doubly galling about all this nonsense you've given us about this false dichotomy between "dogmatism" and "political reality" is just HOW inutterably false it really is.

Either conservatism works, or it doesn't. If it works, then go with it. If it doesn't, then we all might as well stop stumping for it, and get on board the progressive gravy train. Nevertheless, conservatism CAN and DOES win - ESPECIALLY in the current political climate, the GOP could have ran any one of the conservatives in the primary and have won with him or her. Perry could have won. Gingrich could have won. Even Bachmann could have beaten Obama. We don't NEED a progressive like Romney to "tack to the centre to win." So now, we enter an election where we could have one of the best opportunities to roll back the Left and start instituting real conservative changes - actually moving back to where we need to be instead of just slowing down the slide away from it - and we've wasted it on an absolute loser of a candidate. Sure, he may beat Obama - but it may end up not mattering that he did.

Political reality IS conservatism, BB. Reality is not subjective. Either something is true, or something is false. Getting government out of our lives will lead to greater prosperity and freedom. Opposing the gay agenda will protect the morals and safety of the nation. Opposing abortion will save little babies' lives. Standing for the Constitution will preserve our liberties. These are all POLITICAL REALITIES. Ones that Mitt Romney has consistently been on the wrong side of until he realised he needed to put up a different public front back in 2007 when he started running for President.

And frankly, BB, if you don't understand these things, or if you think that the Constitution, economic freedom, protecting the right to life, and so forth are just "dogmas" to be tossed away when your chosen candidate doesn't support them, then we ARE very different...and you are NOT representing political reality.

Let's ask you some other questions about political reality:

Will Romney do anything about the TSA, VIPR, unconstitutional searches, etc. And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional czars that Obama has set up? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional and liberty-invasive portions of the PATRIOT Act? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

In short, what real evidence do we have that Romney would govern any more constitutionally than Obama has?

People on hear screech and moan about whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not and whether he is constitutionally eligible for the office he now occupies. But really, why do we care, if we're just supposed to go along with a Republican who, while perhaps born a citizen, has shown no real concern for that document any more than Obama has?

Seriously - if it's "dogma" to stand for the Constitution, to stand for freedom, to stand for economic liberty, to stand for protecting little babies from having their heads pulled off by a legalised murderer, then you may count me as a "dogmatist," whether or not Rush Limbaugh approves.

On this basis, I'd hazard the guess that Massachusetts may be a swing state this year.

Talk about losing touch with political realities.

All your talk reminds me of back in 2008, when FReepers were desperately assuring one another that New Jersey and Pennsylvania were in play, and that we were going to take Michigan because "there are a lot of McCain/Palin yardsigns around."

Anywise, I have to say - probably the worst long-term result of Barack Obama's tenure has not been the tanking economy, or Fast and Furious, or the czars. It has been to totally and completely emasculate conservatives through fear to the point where they will willing, nay enthusiastically support a complete and utter progressive, just because he isn't Obama.

You know, if everybody who claims to be a conservative would actually vote for and support Virgil Goode, he'd have a strong chance of winning. The only thing keeping this from happening is the narrow-mindedness, the inability to think outside the box, the institutionalisation to the Republican Party, that plagues the thinking of too many conservatives. "We're scared. We don't want to take a chance. Nobody knows who he is. He doesn't have any money." All things that could change in three weeks, if people had any sense about them.

That right there, BB, is the "art of the possible." THAT'S thinking outside the approved text.

The approved text says "Go with the RINO if he's nominee because we all have to rally around him to win." THAT is non-thinking. THAT is dogmatism.

I'll close with this question for you, as well as for everyone else on the thread - putting aside all arguments about relative support levels, IF Mitt Romney and Virgil Goode had an equal chance of winning, WHICH one would you rather see win? This ought to be an interesting gauge of just how conservative our FReeper population really is.

56
posted on 06/02/2012 12:20:49 PM PDT
by Yashcheritsiy
(not voting for the lesser of two evils)

He has such a great opportunity, if he wins, to have one of the best cabinets.

I've put some thought into this, and rather than just linking to it again let me repost and expand upon it a little with some new developments for the full benefit of this thread.

Assuming Romney becomes the (R) nominee, he will need to coalesce the base. He must do this convincingly for conservatives and Tea Party to get on board full throttle, not just halfheartedly.

How many of us were enthusiastic about Reagan in 1980 but thought the "Rockefeller Wing" was going to sabotage our chances when he selected GHWBush as his VP? How many of us were somewhat enthusiastic about Quayle, but not so much about GHWBush in 1988? How many of us were enthusiastic about Kemp, not so enthusiastic about Dole in 1996? How many of us were only cautiously supportive of GWBush in 2000, but roared when we learned he'd selected Cheney as his VP?

How does Romney get us ALL on board? Here's a suggestion:

Run not only with your VP but with your proposed cabinet as well.

Conservatives sometimes have to be reminded that a President is not king. He can't get anything done by dictate. Above all, he must be a quarterback for the team. While a quarterback may sometimes run a ball in to the end zone himself, more often than not he strategically uses the talents of his team mates to move the ball down the field and bring about the win.

Did anyone hear Palin (4/12/2012) on Hannity when asked if she'd consider being Sec'y of Energy? Did you watch her show the following night in place of Greta? Did anyone hear our own FReeper Allen West when interviewed on Hannity (4/11/2012) and asked whether he'd consider being Romney's VP? And BOTH essentially said YES!

Newt has conceded. Romney captured the TX delegates. Newt barely got 8% for all the promised Perry endorsement did him. Newt actually endorsed Romney when in Georgia. Paul is out (finally). Are any of these folks any less conservative for facing what are becoming our realities this election cycle?

A revolt at the RNC convention is NOT going to happen, now that everybody is for all practical purposes lining up, as they should, behind the likely (R) nominee, Mitt Romney.

I have proposed cabinet and administration roles for persons who were Romney's rivals at some point. These are the skill sets we conservatives wanted applied to the places of government where they'd be most effective. Instead of rivals let's make them team players:

Rick Santorum - Sec'y of HHS

Sarah Palin - Sec'y of Energy + Sec'y of Interior + EPA(merge these)

Newt Gingrich - Sec'y of Education

Michelle Bachmann - Attorney General

Herman Cain - Sec'y of Commerce, HUD, + Head of GSA (merge)

Tim Pawlenty: Sec'y of Transportation

John Bolton - Sec'y of State

John Petraeus - Sec'y of Defense

Ron Paul - Head of Federal Reserve (let the audit begin!)

Donald Trump - Head Council of Economic Advisers

Paul Ryan - Head of Office of Management and Budget

Joe Arpaio - Head of FBI, + Homeland Security (merge these)

Dick Cheney - Head of CIA

White House spokesman: Mike Huckabee

1st Supreme Court nominee: Mark Levin

2nd Supreme Court nominee: Ann Coulter

And our own FReeper, Allen West, as VP

Did anyone catch the Frank Luntz, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain program on 5/28/2012 with that audience of former Obama voters, where Hannity and Cain tested messages on the audience to which were the most persuasive? Herman Cain was asked by Sean who Romney ought to pick for VP and Cain suggested Allen West!

I was a Perry guy. Keep him as Governor of Texas. He's doing fine right where he is.

Next: Most of these folks are honed primed and stoked from the recent primary debates. They're all sharp. Nationalize the cabinet selection process as much as the Presidential and Congressional elections.

Release every one of these folks back out onto the the campaign trail with an assignment: tackle in an "in your face" way each of these departments - stage a kick-off news conference in front of each one of them. Challenge the office holders to the equivalent of Lincoln-Douglas style debates allowing each Obama appointed office member to defend their record and their (mis)-management of their public trust.

They won't debate, you say? OK, try some new Rules for Conservative Radicals. Stalk them, dog them with cameras, shame them into the arena, watch the cowards avoid the heat, watch for and exploit their mis-steps, create and run ads based on their failures in office and refusal to be made accountable.

Envision Joe Arpaio standing out in front of the TSA calling out Janet Napolitano to mix it up with him!

Envision Newt Gingrich perched out front of the Dept of Education taunting Arne Duncan to a debate on the front steps where Duncan can try vainly to defend his record as Sec'y of Education. Dog him wherever he goes.

Envision Sarah Palin calling out Stephen Chu to debate the Keystone pipeline, fracking, ANWR, and American energy self-sufficiency through Natural gas and 200+ year proven oil reserves left untapped due to Federal regs and an idiot Secretary who looks forward to $7/gallon gas! Dog him wherever he goes. Dare them to accuse you of stalking!

Multiply that 10-fold. Get in their faces and with camera's rolling. Go Breitbart on them!

While this is distracting the DNCs resources, Romney can land his own punches on Obama in the same way he's managed to blow away all his opposition in the primaries. Use Romney's well funded strike teams to confound opposition at the grass roots, do what they can to discourage and depress Democratic opposition and their voters.

Similar to what I have suggested for the proposed cabinet taking it straight to Obama's appointees Romney has already given indication that he's willing to take it right to Obama. Look at that Press conference Romney had on 5/31/2012 with failed Solyndra as the back drop. This is exactly what I am saying for the proposed cabinet members to do.

Face it: if Romney was able to take out his competitors in the primary don't you suppose Obama's hacks could have taken anyone of them out in the general?

Have Romney's boys sew the seeds of hopelessness and dissension in the Obama ranks, emphasize betrayal and failure of Obama to keep 2008 promises. Undermine, destroy and confound the opposition into a confused, ill-directed mass who find themselves fighting on more than one Alinskyized, freeze-the-target Presidential candidate, and instead spending their resources fighting 10+ personalities "running" for cabinet offices.

Who are the DNCs "generals" they have to call into a fight like that? If the experience in Boston on 5/31/2012 is any indication of any thing I think we actually may have them on the run.

Team Romney and Tea Partiers are getting in the face of the likes of David Axelrod right on the steps of the Massachusetts State House, shouting him down, and rattling his sorry ass right on national TV.

It is happening, folks. The Islamo-Marxist is going down in November! Let's all be counted in making that happen, not sitting out, or wasting our energies on 3rd party distractions and certain losers!

It's no simpler stated than this: If you don't help Romney get elected anything else you do -- or don't do -- only helps Obama get re-elected. Voting 3rd party isnt voting against Romney and voting against Obama  it is voting for who ever between the two of them wins the general  and in the end you have no standing to influence either one of them.

Instead of dividing us with all the endless sniping, let's quit doing the DNC's work for them and work on dividing THEM for a change!

For instance, gin up Blacks' and Hispanics' traditional revulsion for things "gay" and shove Joe Biden's pre-mature-ejacu-intellectual foot farther up the ass of our first "Gay President" -- a title just gifted to us by that Time magazine cover. Divide and conquer. Beat it like a drum. We can and we will win this thing!

Romney and Netanyahu both began strategic business careers at Boston Consulting Group. Agree with them or disagree with them, but admit that they are patient, long range, strategic thinkers.

One of the things Romney has been able to do in large part is to keep his persona distanced from the decisively well-calculated positioning of opposition to rivals in the primaries. His name-less, face-less cloaked "hit-men" are as effective as any guerrilla force out there, but all that activity is maintained at a plausibly deniable, comfortable, arms-length distance from Romney the candidate. I dare say it puts the likes of Nixon's and Clinton's "opposition research" squads to shame.

Sorry George. Enough of the "kinder-gentler" crap. Tight formations, and "gentlemen's wars" provided the fixed targets that let us destroy the British in our War of Independence.

I can see that machine going to work on Obama and leaving more than just a few lumps. Let's turn the "talents" of Romney's henchmen on to Obama, keep them disciplined, focused, and this side of doing any thing "Watergate," and let them go for the DNC's jugular.

If Romney is what we've got to work with this time around let's face that fact head on and let's hold his feet to the fire and make our will known as conservatives. If he's smart he'll seek our trust, and appoint many of our cabinet choices. To secure our trust he's going to have to both earn it and maintain it.

Romney will go a long and convincing way to doing that by arming, deputizing, and funding the campaign efforts of his "cabinet-in-waiting."

I see a lot of basis in reality. Most people in politics today see the danger of BO. Some egos may not stand for the positions being offered, but hands down, that is the 1980 Miracle Olympic Hockey team all over!!!

61
posted on 06/02/2012 1:12:18 PM PDT
by netmilsmom
(Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)

I think I date stamped enough things in that last post to show you what reality is all about this election cycle, and if you chose to pay a little more attention to reality, instead of rhapsodizing fantasies about what are nothing more than "might have beens" and "never will be's" at this point, you'd be more effective.

You've been boxing with a caricature of Romney that you and some others are content to do battle with at the expense of directing your fire more productively at Obama -- the real target.

Romney wasn't our first choice. But he won. Deal with it.

You need to return to "Real-ville," as Rush likes to call it, face the fact that who ever you pulled for in the primary lost, and that that primary opponent has enough sense themselves at this point to get on board with Romney, and do a full court press to get rid of Obama in 2012.

Agamemnon's talking about Romney picking Allen West for VP, when Romney and his team themselves have been talking up RINOs like Rob Portman and Jeb Bush. Jabber about "Realsville" all you want, there's still a fundamental disconnect there.

64
posted on 06/02/2012 1:25:51 PM PDT
by Yashcheritsiy
(not voting for the lesser of two evils)

You need to return to "Real-ville," as Rush likes to call it, face the fact that who ever you pulled for in the primary lost, and that that primary opponent has enough sense themselves at this point to get on board with Romney, and do a full court press to get rid of Obama in 2012.

I'm not a Republican. So, you're talking to someone else, not me.

Fact is, every ounce of energy, time, and money that conservatives put into the GOP nominating process in 2012 was totally wasted.

70
posted on 06/02/2012 1:48:05 PM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)

Look for Jon HUntsman to be appointed to a very important position, perhaps as SoS or even working veep with focus upon China. Huntsman is attending the Bilderberger conference in VA this week and would be an important link for the powers working for a world ‘governance’. Dick Cheney is not well enough with his new heart to do the CIA directorship. The Congressman from South Carolina who is stomping on Holder every time he has the floor of the F&F hearings would be an ideal head of CIA or Attorney General. Gowdy is the sort of no nonsense man a squishy moderate like Milt needs to give gravitas to his administration. The installing of Sarah to run energy and EPA would cause enough liberal head explosion for that reason alone to appoint her! I like the idea of revealing some of his cabinet now and sending them into the fray, but to reveal all of them now would only give the lying media more room to falsely accuse individuals and tie them to Milt. Besides, little barry bastard commie isn’t going to be the demoncrap nominee in November if things continue to unravel in his fraudulent lifestory.

>>You dont get it. Should he win, Mitt Romney will not put any real conservative in any position of any real power.<<

YOU don’t get it.
Barack Obama wins and there is a 100% chance that he will not put a conservative of any flavor in and I’d say on his past record, a 95% chance that there will be more Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Jihadis brought to positions of power.

Bet me.

72
posted on 06/02/2012 2:13:00 PM PDT
by netmilsmom
(Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)

I think this would be a good idea, but quite honestly, I'm not interested in what Romney "might do" other than take out the most destructive president in our lifetime (maybe ever).

I'm not expecting anything great from him as president, if he does something that's good, I'll be quite happy, but let's not put any expectations on him that aren't real. Please don't take this as being overly critical, but I think that's what your post does.

Right now I expect him to take out the worst president ever and stop the bleeding. If he does positive things, great, but let's get rid of the Marxist, that will be enough in the beginning.

Look for Jon HUntsman to be appointed to a very important position, perhaps as SoS or even working veep with focus upon China.

Right, he could be Ambassador to China again, under an (R) administration this time. /sarc

Huntsman proved his worthlessness by carrying water for Obama. Bilderbergs might want him for SoS but I don't see Romney being tied to influence of the Euro-bankers/power brokers the same way Bush-Clinton-Obama's have been enough to pick him for that position on their say so.

Huntsman is attending the Bilderberger conference in VA this week and would be an important link for the powers working for a world governance.

I appreciate where you are coming from but Euro solvency is of more concern this time around, I think. Obama can't be counted on by Bilderberg to deliver, and they are regrouping. A QE4 to prop up the Euro won't fly. Fed has no money, China is slowing, so no artificially propped-up yuan from them this time around either.

In fact if US is gonna prop them up we need to generate the revenue to do it, and that might only come by getting Obama out and Romney in where US goes gang busters with our deregulated energy sector, deregulation of business and privatization of public lands.

If the rising tide lifts all boats, then fine. US supremacy and freedom again rule the day like post-WWII, and if that makes bankers happy because they get their money in the end, I am fine with that. If it's they are making money ONLY BECAUSE we are making money, I am fine with that, too. They need us more than we need them, and we can put them on a leash to a certain extent. America back in the world driver's seat suits me fine all the way around.

It has been in the interest of world bankers to weaken the US for a time (at least since 2008). They pulled $5T out of our economy in one day on Sept 16, 2008, didn't they?

The US is an undervalued asset today, and lots of bargains have been created here as a result. Businesses have billions on the side awaiting and investment climate. A Romney presidency is just that environment.

Remember, Bretton Woods (1944) predates the 1st Bilderberg in 1954. It was a precursor to Biderberg, in fact. It was in their interest to have the stability of the US pegging a $-value to gold.

Remember this too, they wanted Bush in 1980 and only got him for VP under Reagan. Bilderbergs don't always get their way.

There's no telling what those f*#%ers are up to this time, but we might be surprised what they think is in their best interests this time around.

Dick Cheney is not well enough with his new heart to do the CIA directorship.

The Congressman from South Carolina who is stomping on Holder every time he has the floor of the F&F hearings would be an ideal head of CIA or Attorney General. Gowdy is the sort of no nonsense man a squishy moderate like Milt needs to give gravitas to his administration.

Well, his Congressional office was broken into with in the last two weeks for some reason, so you might be right. I like Gowdy. Also like Bachmann.

The installing of Sarah to run energy and EPA would cause enough liberal head explosion for that reason alone to appoint her!

As the song goes, "I can dream, can't I?" :-)

I like the idea of revealing some of his cabinet now and sending them into the fray, but to reveal all of them now would only give the lying media more room to falsely accuse individuals and tie them to Milt.

My point is the media and DNC couldn't keep up with the onslaught. They'd be overwhelmed by them. And they'd be the inspirational knockdown drag-outs that Romney seems caple of and inclined at this point to go brass knuckles on.

sides, little barry bastard commie isnt going to be the demoncrap nominee in November if things continue to unravel in his fraudulent lifestory.

If so, all the more reason to send the "cabinet-in-waiting" out there to take out Barry O'bastard's appointees, and then let Romney finish off what's left of Biden and that foot he's still got stuck up Obama's gay ass!

Amen EV! George Washington, in his farewell address also discussed at length the problems of aligning oneself with political party’s. All his predictions have come true. It is where we are stuck. The good news is that some constitutional conservatives have made the choice to exercise their voting rights by not supporting the major two political party’s; Demicans and Republiocrats! I won’t live to see the party system changed, but I don’t have to play by their rules any longer.

1. Hates America. Check
2. Hates free enterprise. Check
3. Loves extremely stupid ideas. Check.
4. The dumbest president ever. Check.
5. The first gay president. Check.
6. The most job destroying president ever. Check
6. The most pro-muzzie president ever. Check.
7. The most pro-choice pro-culture of death president ever. Check
8. The most divisive president ever. Check
9. The biggest spending president ever. Check.
10. The most wealth devaluating president ever. Check.
11. The most incompetent president ever. Check.
12. The most unqualified president ever. Check.

And above all, let’s make sure we don’t vote for Romney...........:-)

87
posted on 06/02/2012 3:30:54 PM PDT
by netmilsmom
(Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)

The only problem I really have with it is that this is not a GOP forum. Never has been, and as long as Jim Robinson owns it, never will be.

I have not been a Republican since 1998. I vote as a non-aligned citizen. Who I vote for and why are very dear to me.

As I tell the polling folks that call from GOP auspices, I am not, repeat NOT, a member of the GOP so please take me off your calling list. I then thank them for their time and wish the God's Blessings.

So thanks again for all your time, but please take me off your ping list.

Please don't take this as being overly critical, but I think that's what your post does.

I don't take offense. It's all strategy.

If you want Obama out you need the base motivated. That's it. That's the only way they get to the polls -- if they are motivated.

Mine is a motivational strategy and I proposed a way to make that happen. If Romney's smart (and I believe he is), he'll take my advice.

All the anti-Romney "sit-it-outs" around here are de-motivational for voters on our side who are inclined to vote. They clearly do not understand how elections are won.

They don't realize that in order for you to get the conservatism they supposedly claim for every "righteous" reason they want, you first have to WIN.

And you have to be able to be directly credited with the politician's win to best position your voice to be listened to when the guy finally gets in office.

That's the way our system works, not all the apocalyptic, "God 'll get you," stuff: assorted Jeremiad's and whimperings of poor-sport hopelessness and cringing spectres of failure belching defeatist bilge from their camps 24-7.

I will continue to oppose and vivisect their high-horse arguments on this Board all the way to election day.

...but let's not put any expectations on him that aren't real.

Our expectations are real. We put our expectations on him and either he meets them or we get rid of him too.

He's a tool. We use him. I don't have to make friends with him. Our interests have to be in line with each other, our motivations can be different. Our basic goals, though not necessarily all goals, must be the same.

Either he moves conservatism forward or we find someone better who is both willing and able (and electable) to do so.

>>You don’t win the battle for conservatism by supporting pro-choice democrat socialists. No matter how much you lie to yourself about it. <<

YOU call it supporting. It’s your perception of my thoughts. I don’t support MR. I can’t stand the guy. But when your country is gone and the constitution is ripped up the war is over. Conservatism is lost along with it.

There will be no battle for conservatism, because there will be the Obama government and NOTHING else.

93
posted on 06/02/2012 3:54:19 PM PDT
by netmilsmom
(Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)

What exactly do you want me to say?
I’m not sure you understand how dangerous BO is to this country. I said it before and I’ll say it again, I would vote for a lunchbag if said lunchbag could beat Barack Obama.

99
posted on 06/02/2012 4:58:53 PM PDT
by netmilsmom
(Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)

Well, I try very hard not to prognosticate. I don’t own a crystal ball, and I’m no prophet.

But, more than twenty years of political experience tells me that a candidate whose own supporters can’t stand him, some of them so much that they won’t even admit they’re supporting him even when they’re supporting him, doesn’t stand much of a chance.

100
posted on 06/02/2012 5:06:46 PM PDT
by EternalVigilance
(The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.